Metafilter.com is good, but Metafilter.xxx is bluer
June 26, 2010 3:57 AM   Subscribe

Pornography will have its own top-level domain, dot-XXX, the board of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers decided Friday. This decision angered both foes of pornography and friends of internet porn. (SFW)
posted by twoleftfeet (75 comments total) 3 users marked this as a favorite

 
Previously.
posted by Obscure Reference at 3:59 AM on June 26, 2010


Previously.

This raises an interesting question; is XXX more interesting before or after?
posted by twoleftfeet at 4:04 AM on June 26, 2010


I hope that gov.lanl.xxx points to xxx.lanl.gov.
posted by oonh at 4:11 AM on June 26, 2010 [10 favorites]


If the old semi-anarchic semi-libertarian style of the Internet persists, this is basically going to shuffle $60/year into ICANN's pockets for countless porn domains and a number of legit corporations who don't want to risk a .xxx knockoff of their name existing for even as long as it takes for their lawyers to bury it.

Honestly, if someone wants "BIGNAME", they try to get BIGNAME.com BIGNAME.net BIGNAME.org, maybe BIGNAME.info, BIGNAME.biz, and BIGNAME.tv if they feel gutsy. It's a naked cash grab that makes a lot of people throw fits. Shuffle objectionable 18+ material to .xxx only and watch as plenty of big sites get hammered hard for "improper advertising", false reports from virus infected systems, and ludicrous definitions of "objectionable material."
posted by Saydur at 4:22 AM on June 26, 2010 [13 favorites]


I haven't been following this debate...uh...at all, actually, and so you'll have to forgive me my naivete, but the question that pops immediately to my mind:

Who decides that a site is pornographic? If I run a company that produces twenty bukkake movies a week -- that is to say, if it's obvious to damn near everyone that I'm making porno -- but I have chosen to view myself as the Truffaut of this shit, a serious filmmaker, and it would be anathema for me to label my work with the lowly "porn" title, what then? Must I move to a ".xxx" domain? If so, then I foresee very serious problems with this. If not, then I'm not sure I see why anyone cares about the ".xxx" thing at all.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:23 AM on June 26, 2010 [6 favorites]


As I've understood it the .xxx domain is meant for porn, but that doesn't mean you can't have porn using other TLDs. Just like the aerospace industry has .aero, museeums have .museeum, asian sites have .asia, most (or all) still use .coms and so on.
posted by bjrn at 5:07 AM on June 26, 2010


Um, so I'd like to state, for the record, that I totally invented this idea back in middle school, when they first started pumping sweet internet through the lab computers...which was swiftly followed by blocking almost everything but Ask Jeeves.
posted by phunniemee at 5:11 AM on June 26, 2010 [3 favorites]


As I've understood it the .xxx domain is meant for porn, but that doesn't mean you can't have porn using other TLDs.

For now, anyway. I think it's pretty obvious that the next step will be on a country-by-country basis, requiring porn businesses to use .xxx domains exclusively. I honestly don't think this is a bad thing; there's a separate rack in the corner store for porn, why not a separate domain?
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 5:14 AM on June 26, 2010 [1 favorite]


I do wonder if Amsterdam, a city with three Saltires in its weapon. A city that puts three x-es on everyting, including its bollards, will sue for trademark infringements.
posted by ijsbrand at 5:23 AM on June 26, 2010


i can't get past this: In 2007 porn.com was sold for $12m.

damn my lack of foresight!
posted by msconduct at 5:32 AM on June 26, 2010


I honestly don't think this is a bad thing

Wow, really? The problem, dnab, is that sites like this could be relegated to a .xxx domain - and then easily blocked from schools, libraries, young kids' bedrooms, etc. - by bigoted and/or easily frightened politicians like those in the US of A. The question of who gets to decide that something is "sex-site" enough to need the .xxx is more than enough to raise questions about this. The money-driven element is just icing on the cake.
posted by mediareport at 5:36 AM on June 26, 2010 [24 favorites]


Um yes, really. Please do note that I was in fact talking about pornography, and not education. Yeah, Americans are insane, but I'm in a good mood today and decided for a moment to pretend that somehow they would grow out of it and not inevitably move anything that might show a square inch of flesh to .xxx. Oh well.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 5:39 AM on June 26, 2010 [1 favorite]


"They won't have to do too much searching to find it. It's a one-stop shop."

Uh, yeah. Because it's so hard to find porn when its spread through-out the fucking internet already.

This will affect the availability of porn not one bit.
posted by clvrmnky at 5:41 AM on June 26, 2010 [2 favorites]


.xxx is for chumps (2005).

.xxx is just a ghetto.
posted by artlung at 5:51 AM on June 26, 2010 [4 favorites]


ug. when i would write up stuff i would often make all the addresses i typed .xxx so they wouldn't hyperlink. guess i have to use .zzz now. until that becomes the international domain for boredom.
posted by lester's sock puppet at 5:52 AM on June 26, 2010 [4 favorites]


So.........any upstanding Mefite willing to step up and register metafilter.xxx as soon as it becomes available before someone, say, less scrupulous gets a hold of it?
posted by Throw away your common sense and get an afro! at 5:55 AM on June 26, 2010


lester, to future proof your examples to non-link, use example.com, example.org, and example.net.
posted by artlung at 5:58 AM on June 26, 2010 [2 favorites]


register metafilter.xxx

Finally, somewhere to put all these pics from the naked meetup afterparties.
posted by rokusan at 6:00 AM on June 26, 2010 [2 favorites]


Please do note that I was in fact talking about pornography, and not education.

Of course. The argument is that by setting up the .xxx domain, ICANN is making it much easier for reactionary politicians to shove all sorts of positive sexuality-related content into an easily blocked "this is bad!" ghetto. Aside from the millions of dollars ICANN stands to gain, it's not clear to me the benefits are worth that downside.
posted by mediareport at 6:05 AM on June 26, 2010 [1 favorite]


I just registered metafilter.xxx

get your checkbook out, Matt! :)
posted by HuronBob at 6:14 AM on June 26, 2010


guess i have to use .zzz now. until that becomes the international domain for boredom.

Coming soon:

.PPP for golden shower sites
.UUU for all your egotistical needs
.OOO for big surprises
.YYY for AskMe, Ask Jeeves, and Yahoo Answers
.EEE for the wide footed and their followers
.III for sons of Juniors and dynastic family domains
.KKK for linens and things
.SSS for all snake-related domains
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:15 AM on June 26, 2010 [48 favorites]


I though this was reserved for the corn liquor industry? I do recall seeing XXX on cartoon jugs.
posted by Bighappyfunhouse at 6:17 AM on June 26, 2010 [7 favorites]


And when the .xxx domains are exhausted we still have:

.CUM
.ORGasm
posted by mazola at 6:27 AM on June 26, 2010 [2 favorites]


It's porn, so it's not so important who's on top-level as it is who has the longest one or the biggest ones.
posted by anothermug at 6:38 AM on June 26, 2010


And we're not to talk about .BBB sites, for obvious reasons.

Signed, Anonymous
posted by Joey Michaels at 6:55 AM on June 26, 2010


I just registered metafilter.xxx

Breast of the web
posted by mazola at 6:59 AM on June 26, 2010 [13 favorites]


If I run a company that produces twenty bukkake movies a week -- that is to say, if it's obvious to damn near everyone that I'm making porno -- but I have chosen to view myself as the Truffaut of this shit, a serious filmmaker, and it would be anathema for me to label my work with the lowly "porn" title, what then?

Your wife leaves you, your critics turn on you, and your star cock moves on to do his own TV show. Also, you get fat and sentimental and drink too much.
posted by carsonb at 7:00 AM on June 26, 2010 [1 favorite]


And we're not to talk about .BBB sites, for obvious reasons.

Honey, if you got it, host it.
posted by rokusan at 7:32 AM on June 26, 2010 [1 favorite]


.WWW for palindromes
posted by Throw away your common sense and get an afro! at 7:33 AM on June 26, 2010 [19 favorites]


This will be a boon for Dos Equis cervesa.
posted by Salvor Hardin at 7:40 AM on June 26, 2010


When you piss off both sides of an issue you know you're doing something right!
posted by tommasz at 7:53 AM on June 26, 2010 [1 favorite]


Original proposal, by P. Stanley and G. Simmons.
posted by Halloween Jack at 7:58 AM on June 26, 2010


.RLD - Red Light Domain

I really dislike this idea. I used to like it, just cuz it looks cool. But really, it's not a good idea. I had the idea of an NSFW tag that browsers could render as a black block or something. A web developer friend said it was stupid because "Do you really trust a government agency to not start dictating rules for that tag?"

And yeah, it's one more step from here to a nice sanitized family version once laws get put in place that all porn must be on xxx. Because it will cuz "think of the children!"

I bet Steve Jobs LOVES this shit.
posted by symbioid at 7:59 AM on June 26, 2010 [1 favorite]


I wonder how tumblr will react to this announcement? Or Blogger? What about sites whose primary function is not to provide pornography itself (ie. for stimulating sexual interest) but to analyse or discuss pornography? Will one naked .jpg be enough to warrant a .xxx domain?

I just checked AVN to see if they'd commented. They had not - but they did inform me that more USians are doin' it in the butt [NSFW].
posted by stinkycheese at 8:09 AM on June 26, 2010 [1 favorite]


I honestly don't think this is a bad thing; there's a separate rack in the corner store for porn, why not a separate domain?

I own a dot com domain that has the word "pornography" in it. The content there is sometimes risque, but not what would be generally considered pornographic. Where would my site end up in the .xxx scheme of things?
posted by squalor at 8:28 AM on June 26, 2010


I just registered metafilter.xxx

Great news for plate-of-beans fetishists everywhere.
posted by PlusDistance at 8:49 AM on June 26, 2010 [4 favorites]


I own a dot com domain that has the word "pornography" in it. [..] Where would my site end up in the .xxx scheme of things

First of all, you could shorten your long-ass domain name. Second, you'll be paying an extra $60/year.

That's basically it.
posted by ryanrs at 8:49 AM on June 26, 2010


DNAB: The reason why Americans are especially wary of stuff like this is because our country was founded on the idea that any power given to government will be abused, and we have nigh 300 years of proving ourselves right.
posted by klangklangston at 8:59 AM on June 26, 2010 [11 favorites]


From the first link: "It's been a long time coming," ICM Chairman Stuart Lawley said in a statement, adding that he is "excited" by the move.

Ooooof.
posted by heyho at 10:37 AM on June 26, 2010 [1 favorite]


First of all, you could shorten your long-ass domain name.

Longassdomainname.xxx - Good idea!
posted by squalor at 10:38 AM on June 26, 2010


Any sysadmin will tell you that a blacklist policy for porn is not going to keep it out. If you have to selectively ban porn, you are going to miss some, because you are going up against an entire industry, and they have more time to spend on this stuff than you do.

If you really want to keep porn out of your internet, you need a whitelist policy. Also known as default-deny. Anything that has not been approved as non-pornographic is blocked.

Doing this to the entire internet would be bad, but what if you just did it to one TLD? For example, .kid? Perhaps a second one for worksafe content meant for adults. Anyone who wanted to could apply for worksafe certification, and get a new URL ending in .sfw that points to the same content as their regular .com.

That might actually work. This will not.
posted by LogicalDash at 10:51 AM on June 26, 2010 [2 favorites]


I kinda like the .kid idea, but what kind of kid? Kidsafe in Finland vs Japan vs US vs Canada vs China vs Saudi Arabia vs Russia will very different things. I'm reminded of RSAC rating badges which used to be common. Apparently less common since RSAC has folded into ICRA. But it's still going to suffer somewhat as a ghetto. It's hard to see the upside to .kid vs. a different whitelist authority for kidsafe sites.
posted by artlung at 11:08 AM on June 26, 2010


wwww.xxx.yy.z

I refuse to pony up the $60 and look forward to what my post secondary arts institution porn site will be like, no doubt set up by some clever artist.
posted by furtive at 11:08 AM on June 26, 2010


In theory, I like it, because it corresponds to my notion that all types of content should be freely available and accurately labelled. But just as I was expressing that thought, my husband came in and said "Yeah, but what's porn?" And he's right.

The murkiest grey area is probably going to be sexual health. Let's say I make a video for women, demonstrating how to masturbate. This is important information, frankly, that is not inherently pornographic at all. So if I have closeups of a woman flipping the bean, is that porn? No, right? And now suddenly there are a billion "educational health" websites on the net, demonstrating the utility of pelvic floor exercises which involve double penetration by massive pink sparkly dildos.

On the other hand, what if it's opt-in? No requirement, but pitch it as an option for high volume commercial porn sites. No more "I am 18 or over" disclaimers, no more chargebacks from fathers claiming it was their SONS who signed up for the BigBustyBabes.com $7/min chatcam, of course, not THEM, they are good family men who love their wives! and then you can have Google.xxx which will not have to make any effort to filter OUT the porn.

That could work. Create incentives for commercial porn to move to the .XXX domain, but no requirements.
posted by KathrynT at 11:09 AM on June 26, 2010 [2 favorites]


Metafilter.xxx: Flipping beans since 2010.
posted by zarq at 11:26 AM on June 26, 2010


Something like xxx.xxx would be cool to have, but I suppose that's been taken a long, long time ago. Maybe I can still get something like xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx? And then I could set a subdomain to xxx and have http://xxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx as a homepage. It'd look great on a business card, I think!
posted by soundofsuburbia at 12:24 PM on June 26, 2010


Whenever somebody'd ask for my URL they'd get a cross stitch pattern in return!
posted by soundofsuburbia at 12:26 PM on June 26, 2010


I registered not_on_display.xxx and if you pay me $60 a year (each) I promise to leave the index page blank.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:59 PM on June 26, 2010


Like others, I'd rather see "known-safe" areas, rather than try and force "kid unsafe" things under one domain.

I've always thought it should be on a per-country basis, e.g.,
.kids.us - only U.S. approved, kid friendly sites, .enfants.fr - only France approved, kid friendly sites, and .kinder.de, niños.es, et cetera. Then people people can whitelist their own country's child friendly domain, and have done.

I'd also support a additional choice of .teens.us, for content appropriate for 13-17 year olds, that may be inappropriate for younger web surfers.
posted by fings at 1:04 PM on June 26, 2010 [1 favorite]


The money-driven element is just icing on the cake.

It's like a cake made of icing!
posted by clarknova at 1:14 PM on June 26, 2010 [2 favorites]


I could never understand NSFW...should you be looking at anything on the net other than what you are paid to do?
posted by Postroad at 1:26 PM on June 26, 2010 [2 favorites]


...should you be looking at anything on the net other than what you are paid to do?

Not everyone works a job that requires minute to minute engagement.

A lot of work sites are fine with you visiting certain kinds of sites on their dime.

The NSFW also varies from workplace to workplace. Few people ever tag gambling sites as NSFW yet many workplaces have policies against visiting these.

This said, I agree with my lawyer when it comes to the this issue: Fuck the NSFW label.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:44 PM on June 26, 2010 [1 favorite]


And then I could set a subdomain to xxx and have http://xxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx as a homepage. It'd look great on a business card, I think!

I was considering getting something as a single-page joke domain (http://moonshine.xxx/ ?) but the $60 kind of makes that not as fun.
posted by wcfields at 2:18 PM on June 26, 2010


And of course. .ARR for software pirates.
posted by mrbill at 3:04 PM on June 26, 2010 [2 favorites]


Q: Who decides what belongs in the .xxx TLD?
A: People who buy .xxx domains.

I really don't get the complaints that creating a .xxx TLD will somehow lead to governments forcing "porn" sites to use it. Governments could just as easily require "porn" sites to include "xxx" somewhere else in their domain name. The mere existence of a TLD doesn't give governments any new powers they can abuse.

I'm equally unmoved by the concern that businesses will "have to" buy the .xxx version of their domains to prevent spoofing. It's not supposed to be easy or cheap to buy the same name in every TLD, because the whole point of having TLDs at all is so that the same name can refer to different things in different contexts. No company should even consider buying the .xxx version of their name unless they plan on getting into the porn business.
posted by shponglespore at 3:17 PM on June 26, 2010 [2 favorites]


what, no straight edge people have complained yet?

- xXxlegolassxXx

(not straight edge-ist)
posted by Wuggie Norple at 3:25 PM on June 26, 2010 [2 favorites]


metafilter.xxx sounds like the perfect place for the Deleted Threads blog.
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:01 PM on June 26, 2010


I'm going to start a new porn search engine:

ogle.xxx

Who wants to invest?
posted by defenestration at 4:43 PM on June 26, 2010 [2 favorites]


Does this mean all sex related questions will now go to ass.metafilter.xxx?
posted by orme at 5:06 PM on June 26, 2010 [1 favorite]


I'm with, shponglespore on this one. People buy "defensive" registrations all the time (the need for which pisses me off), and use extensions that aren't meant for it. How many personsname.com sites do you see? Unless you're a company that should be 0. Same for .net. Those were supposed to be reserved for ISPs.

So I see the tlds being a non-starter. I also won't pay $60 for one. And that's too bad, because I hear porn will be the next big thing online.
posted by cjorgensen at 5:10 PM on June 26, 2010


The problem, dnab, is that sites like this could be relegated to a .xxx domain...

I don't have a firm (hur hur) position on this whole boondoggle, but I doubt ithinkimightbegay.com has to maintain 18 U.S.C. § 2257 records. Those have their own issues, but if you're required to keep those records that seems like a decent staring place for the line between .xxx and non-.xxx sites.
posted by Evilspork at 5:27 PM on June 26, 2010 [1 favorite]


evilspork:

I would imagine that most/many web sites don't actually create content - in which case they would not have to keep such records.
posted by el io at 6:11 PM on June 26, 2010


Eh, fairly stupid. We're getting to have too many TLDs. It's just a cash grab from everyone who has to run out and buy the new version of their old domains.
posted by delmoi at 6:23 PM on June 26, 2010


I think this is a bad trend because it just furthers the gold rush mentality of TLDs. I'm in favour because everyone of these vanity TLDs dilutes the value of any particular TLD. TLDs should be about as meaningful as area codes.
posted by Mitheral at 6:35 PM on June 26, 2010


TLDs should be about as meaningful as area codes.

I wish there were none.

I mean seriously, when I was in college whitehouse.com was a porn site. whitehouse.gov wasn't until Kenneth Star came along. I shouldn't have to worry about confusing them.

I can give tons of examples where sites aren't what their tld says they are.

I say we use raw IPs. 216.92.5.193 isn't harder than a phone number. And with google you don't need to remember the number anyway. Fewer and fewer people are even typing in URLs. This was the whole facebook boondoggle a bit back when people were trying to log into a mashable article because that what google was returning as a hit for facebook.

You can't save people from stupidity.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:31 PM on June 26, 2010


I mean seriously, when I was in college whitehouse.com was a porn site. whitehouse.gov wasn't until Kenneth Star came along. I shouldn't have to worry about confusing them.

Confusing? One of them was full of porn!
posted by ryanrs at 8:37 PM on June 26, 2010


I say we use raw IPs. 216.92.5.193 isn't harder than a phone number.

it's called progress. I doubt kids under 18 even memorize phones numbers, save maybe their home number for emergencies because everyone has cell phones with built in phone books. I used to have all my friend's #s memorized, but I don't know anyone's by heart anymore with cell phones.

And, really, using IP addresses instead of DNS names? Give me DNS names any day of the week. I have a set of ten or so IP addresses I use on a regular basis at work I get messed up alone, and they're all on the same subnet. Now multiply that by completely variable octets and more than 10 pages I frequent and I'd never remember how to get anywhere.
posted by jmd82 at 9:21 PM on June 26, 2010


Well the real problem with IP addresses is the same as that with phone numbers: they aren't static. I don't want to have to remember a new IP address for Metafilter every time Matt changes hosting.
posted by Mitheral at 3:04 AM on June 27, 2010


if you're required to keep those records that seems like a decent staring place for the line between .xxx and non-.xxx sites.

I agree. It would be wonderful if we could trust that politicians would use something as simple as that to draw the line. It would be naive as hell, but wonderful.
posted by mediareport at 7:28 AM on June 27, 2010


posted by twoleftfeet at 3:57 AM - 69 comments (69 new) +

Seems appropriate.
posted by electroboy at 9:33 AM on June 27, 2010


"I don't have a firm (hur hur) position on this whole boondoggle, but I doubt ithinkimightbegay.com has to maintain 18 U.S.C. § 2257 records. Those have their own issues, but if you're required to keep those records that seems like a decent staring place for the line between .xxx and non-.xxx sites."

Please, no. 2257 is over-broad code basically designed to persecute pornographers—the actual language on who you have to keep records on is ridiculous and arbitrary. The conversation could just as easily go the other way—because a site is about sex, or indecent or whatever, it has to get a .xxx TLD, and .xxx TLDs now have to keep 2257 records.

(Hey any of you amateur pornographers out there—Got a naked picture of your partner? Better have color copies of their driver's license! Also, anyone want to hire a freelance record keeper for 2257? I'm pretty good at it.)
posted by klangklangston at 9:39 AM on June 27, 2010 [2 favorites]


I could never understand NSFW...should you be looking at anything on the net other than what you are paid to do?

What if you were a firefighter, and much of your job (hopefully) consisted of waiting around the station for an alarm? Or, say, an air traffic controller, where for safety you work a rotating two hours on, one hour off all day with two other people. My job is staffed for estimated work loads that don't always materialize, so at times there are people with nothing going on at the moment. Your employer may not mind you screwing around on the net during your down time.

They almost certainly WOULD on the other hand, not want you browsing stuff that could get them a 'hostile work environment' lawsuit, and so would have written policies on not looking at, say, goodshit.blogspot.com on the machine in the open-plan employee hangout.
posted by ctmf at 11:03 AM on June 27, 2010 [1 favorite]


Hey guys, look on the bright side: a little crafty subterfuge, in the form of putting some mildly NSFW stuff on right-wing nutjob websites...and there you go!

Right wingers relegated to a shadowy corner of their own creation. Trust me, the irony will be completely lost on them.
posted by Xoebe at 2:15 PM on June 27, 2010


People keep saying that this is to protect children and it will make it easier for people to filter OUT all of those nasty images and stuff like that.

I think that a better idea would be to get .kids going and have parents wall their kids IN with the .kids TLD as they see fit. I think that more kid-friendly companies would jump on with a .kids domain because they would want to be viewed as 'family friendly.' Chances are it would fill up a lot faster than .xxx, which is likely to be another cesspool of silly domains, just like a lot of the two letter domains already are.

tl;dr: I prefer the "opt in" approach.
posted by drstein at 3:37 PM on June 28, 2010


I can't imagine how anybody thinks any government could somehow "force" every porn site to use the XXX TLD. Super, we have a new TLD that will make things easier to block... But there's still going to be a million porn sites out there that don't use the .xxx TLD, and you'll never catch them all.
posted by antifuse at 11:44 AM on June 30, 2010


« Older Who's that writing? [MLYT]...  |  TV idents provide a bridge bet... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments